Re: Fwd: version vs edition numbers in Emacs manuals

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Cc: johns@fsf.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:42:09 -0800
> 
> On 11/14/19 4:18 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > I didn't see John's response, not sure why.  Can someone forward it to
> > me?
> 
> Sure, here it is:

Thanks.

> > we should have a separate target in the Makefile, and we should maintain
> > the last printed edition in some separate file, because no one will
> > remember that otherwise.
> 
> A separate Makefile target would be fine, but the separate file should 
> be something that the FSF Press maintains.

How will that work in practice?  Isn't the printed version built by
using our Makefile's and our build infrastructure?  Then how can this
file be kept separate, and how will it be maintained to be available
when needed?

> The FSF Press is downstream from developers, they generate edition
> numbers at their convenience not developers', and they can and
> should be the ones who keep track of the edition numbers that they
> maintain.

Fine with me if that works.  But we must somehow make sure this
knowledge doesn't get lost.  Whoever prepares a manual for printing
should be aware that they need to do something that isn't already done
in the Emacs sources.  Maybe a simple README in those directories
could be the solution, e.g. if its name was indicative of its being a
necessary read when a manual is being prepared for printing.

Thoughts.

> > The fact that some manuals use EDITION while others use VERSION also
> > doesn't make this very clean, IMO.
> 
> Yes, that area could easily be made more systematic. For example, we 
> could systematically use just EDITION and DATE for all the FSF 
> Press-maintained info.

I'd like that, yes.